find below a format of complaint to the "Three
Member Committee" in your area City/ES./WS. to take
Disciplinary/penal action against Ward Officer, if
the Ward Officer has not taken effective action against illegal
HAWKERS ,on your complaint(s) , for failure to perform
his duty, as per the Supreme Court order dated 9.12.2003.
Request pl. circulate to all concerned NGO's & give wide publicity
to this in your area ,as well as in the Media for public awareness.
From -Madhu Sawant , G.R. Vora & others
or E.S Ghatkopar, or W.S. Kandivali
the concerned address )
to take penal/disciplinary action against Ward Officer (now called
Asstt. Mun. Commr. hereinafter referred as WO) of ___ Ward,
as per the directives in the Supreme Court order dated 9.12.2003,
for failure to perform his duty.
Appeal Nos. 4156–4157 of 2002 of Supreme Court (SC) in the
Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr.Vs.Municipal Corporation & Ors.
on 9.12.2003.(Hereinafter called “the said order” ).
We, the residents / traders / shopkeepers / residents’ group/citizens’
forum/NGO--------of-----------area,(strike off whichever are
not applicable) (Hereinafter called “The citizens”) request
you to take the appropriate penal / disciplinary action against
the Ward Officer ---Ward
(WO for short), as directed by the Hon. S.C. in
15 at page No. 22-23 of the said order :-
adverse remark in the “Confidential Record” of the WO, for failure
to perform his duty.
promotion of the WO as more than three such entries should have
been recorded till date, for failure to perform his duty.
the services of the WO as more than six such entries should have
been recorded in the Confidential Record of the WO till date, for
failure to perform his duty.
request you to impose the above penalty for the following reasons:-
section 61 (o) of the BMC Act 1888, “The removal of obstructions
and projections in or upon the streets, bridges and other public
places is the ‘obligatory duty’ of the Corporation”. Thus it is
the obligatory duty of the WO to perform the above duty, as he is
the administrative head of this ward.
the said order ( Para
15 / Page 22) the SC has directed that “It is expected that citizens
and shopkeepers shall participate in keeping non-hawking zones /
areas free from hawkers.” Thus we have done our utmost and with
our limited resources to aid the WO by bringing to his attention
of the above violations in writing, or otherwise, and acting as
watchdogs in general.
we the citizens of this ward have complained to the WO _______times
since the said order till date in writing (letters enclosed) to
evict the illegal hawkers on _______________ Road / Footpath / open
spaces / gardens / playground / recreational ground , and yet no
action has been taken against these hawkers by the WO.
have complained to you (i.e. the Three Member Committee) _____ times
in writing (letters enclosed). Therefore, now there are sufficient
grounds for you to make at least _____ adverse remarks in the Confidential
Record of the WO regarding “failure to perform his duty”.
sincere efforts were not made (if at all) by the WO for evicting
these hawkers, to ensure that the unauthorized hawkers were penalized
as per the provisions of the BMC Act Section 516 AAA and other laws,
and thus he has not taken any steps to prevent their return to their
place of business, nor written to police station for taking any
action against these hawkers, as was required as per the said order.
area is a prominently visible place in the ward. And due to
the presence of unauthorized hawkers on public places give rise
to various civic, traffic and law & order problems for us citizens.
Thus it was imperative that the WO should have, taking recourse
to the various anti-encroachment laws under the BMC Act and other
laws of the land, and backed by said order of the Hon’ble SC, should
have taken prudent, prompt and stringent action against the law-breaker
hawkers. There was no reason whatsoever for the WO to neglect his
duty and ignore his function as WO, in this area. This has lead
to untold misery to us citizens day in and day out.
very fact that that despite receiving ____ complaints in writing
and being empowered by the said order of the SC and the BMC Act,
the Bombay Police Act, the Indian Penal code etc., the WO chose
not to initiate effective action against the unauthorized hawkers,
proves that he has abdicated of his responsibility as a an administrative
and a planning head of this ward and it is a deliberate attempt
by him to shield the unauthorized hawkers. This amounts to “failure
to perform his duty” and “dereliction of duty”. All of this, you
would agree is ground enough for the WO to be penalized by his promotion
being withheld or service being terminated as directed by the said
the WO claims that action has been taken (?) against the unauthorized
hawkers , whenever he has/had received complaints from the citizens,
then it is amply clear that such “evictions” were a mere sham and
an eyewash and an attempt to fake
record as “actions taken”
in the ward register , because in almost all the cases the action
initiated has been in a futile/half-hearted
manner, inadequate Police protection sought, hawkers being forewarned
of these “eviction drives”, very little (if at all) goods / wares
/ stalls being confiscated, minimal penalties imposed etc.
Such eviction drives being conducted in a lackadaisical and
callous manner was always apparent to us residents, traders, pedestrians
and observers as just within half an hour to one hour after such
“eviction drives” the hawkers whose goods / wares / stalls have
been ‘confiscated’ return to their place of business along with
the same ‘confiscated goods’, and then life went on as usual.
is also clearly seen that whenever the Police protection was sought
during the eviction drives, the stringent penalties under the Bombay
Police Act / the Indian Penal Code etc. have
never been invoked by the WO.
the provision of the BMC Act under section 516 AAA were never applied
/ invoked by the WO. Under these provisions offences under section
313,313A and 313B are cognizable
and bailable. Meaning that the concerned hawkers could have
by the police on the complaint
of the said WO. Further the offenders could have “fined”
by the Courts under section 472 BMC Act. Never, to our knowledge,
has the WO invoked any of these provisions to deter the unauthorized
Hawkers from returning to their place of business.
dereliction of duty by the WO is clear by the fact that the “Saaf
Aangan” scheme, initiated by the Municipal Commissioner and proposed
by the civic-conscious citizen – Mr. Madhu Sawant of the NGO ‘I
Clean Mumbai’, vide the BMC circular No. MCC / B / 9185 of 2.12.2002),
which was put forth to involve better citizen involvement in the
upkeep and maintenance of the open spaces and keep it encroachment
free, has never been attempted/ implemented by the WO. This is apparent
by the fact that little or no publicity has been given by the WO
to this excellent scheme. The citizens’ proposals to adopt their
footpaths / open spaces are neither being expedited, nor permission
granted for adoptions, not giving water connections for the upkeep
of gardens / flower beds (wherever required) etc. Please note that
the order to implement “Saaf Aangan” scheme by the WO was reiterated
by the DyMC (Hawkers Regulation) – Mr. C B Rokde vide BMC circular
no. DMC (HR)/5 of 14.3.2005.
Yet, this scheme lies in limbo – unknown, unused and unexplored.
All the above prove the guilt of the WO for lack of any will
on his part, and his dereliction of duty and willful protection
of the unauthorized hawkers, thus inviting the penal/disciplinary
clause of the said order (i.e. withholding promotion or termination
of service) as the case may be.
Now we urge you to do the needful (as directed & required
by the said order of the SC) ,so that the citizens /commuters are
relieved of the tremendous nuisance and mental agony caused due
to the presence of unauthorized hawkers in this area.
group / Traders group etc.
P.S.---For any difficulty may contact 'CT-Space'NGO,
or Mr.G.R.VORA (Sion) Mob..98691-95785 or 24091193